Spirituality
24 Apr 15
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd suggesting somebody may be mentally handicapped is not, smugface?
That would be an ad hominem attack.
P.S. Calling you "smugface" is not an insult or ad hominem because that is your own signature.
P.P.S. Concerning your other signature, where you call yourself the "near genius", have you ever read Romans 12, 3? Just asking...
27 Apr 15
Originally posted by CalJustAgree on one side it is the interpretations of the Bible, and on the other the scientific
How exactly have the tables been turned?
Same tables, same sides.
On the one hand, we have the defenders of the literal interpretation of the Bible, and on the other hand the scientific establishment.
Granted, one major difference between then and now is that the church then was much more powerful, and could excommunicate, even execute, the scientis ...[text shortened]... and influential, it can no longer execute, say, Dawkins, and I think that at least is progress.
community. Now the church has no sway into people's lives while you can lose standing
and so have your livelihood neg. affected if your views don't line up with todays scientific
dogma. The differences are in the who has the power, the funny thing is that it doesn't
matter whoever is on top will punish the other. Which I believe has more to do with the
nature of man than it does the discussion.
Originally posted by finnegan"However, morality has to refer to social values, shared by at least many people in the same community and achieving legitimacy by whatever means may be effective for that society. No community or society can function on the basis that its members each devise their own rule of engagement."
[quote] If our bases for all right and wrong starts and ends with us, than all of our rights and wrongs are all opinions. We can debate opinions, we can go to war over them, it will be an never ending struggle of who is right and who is wrong.
That changes if there is One we are all accountable too, than right and wrong, sin will be
something we need t ...[text shortened]... h some workable and generally accepted conclusions. One decent way to achieve this is democracy.
I agree with this statement which is why I'm saying I'm not talking about morality since
that basically resides with our community and society! I've been talking about sin and
right and wrong that goes beyond our man made notions of right and wrong that are
always in a state of flux. As long as we are the sole slide rule on what is acceptable and
what should be rejected we cannot really have sin, since that would mean something
beyond simply personal opinion and societies acceptance. The only way we can really
sin is if we are all held to some standard that we cannot alter and change on whim.
Originally posted by KellyJayWe ONLY have man made notions of morality. You can talk about the morality of religion but this is the 21st century. New conundrums have popped up that require a deep look at morality and you will not find the solutions in the bible. For instance, the morality of giving or withholding a kidney transplant. Try finding THAT in the bible.
"However, morality has to refer to social values, shared by at least many people in the same community and achieving legitimacy by whatever means may be effective for that society. No community or society can function on the basis that its members each devise their own rule of engagement."
I agree with this statement which is why I'm saying I'm not talki ...[text shortened]... can really
sin is if we are all held to some standard that we cannot alter and change on whim.
The world is a million times more complex, not least because we now have close to 8 billion people on the planet with hundreds or thousands of cultures with their own rules of morality.
It is now up to people to figure out the new stuff, the bible is no help there. It is just further proof men made up the morality in the first place and just ascribed them to a god so the weak minded population ATT would follow, otherwise they would question the authority of the men making those original moral statements.
Ascribing them to a god stops the arguments for the most part.
And hear I am, questioning very deeply the authority of said alleged god.
Originally posted by CalJustYes, that is why I call myself "the Near Genius" instead of "The Genius." I have also called myself "The Moron Instructor" too. 😏
And suggesting somebody may be mentally handicapped is not, smugface?
P.S. Calling you "smugface" is not an insult or ad hominem because that is your own signature.
P.P.S. Concerning your other signature, where you call yourself the "near genius", have you ever read Romans 12, 3? Just asking...
Originally posted by KellyJayWe cannot be "the sole slide rule of what is acceptable." That is where we recognize our membership of a social community. I almost thought we were agreed on that much. But you continue "that would mean something beyond simply personal opinion and societies [sic - you mean society's or even societies' ] acceptance," which seems to imply that you use the word "we" not to refer to our individual choices but to our choices as a society, our collective choices (though you would fear that word "collective" perhaps). This signals that we are talking at cross purposes.
"However, morality has to refer to social values, shared by at least many people in the same community and achieving legitimacy by whatever means may be effective for that society. No community or society can function on the basis that its members each devise their own rule of engagemement
I agree with this statement which is why I'm saying I'm not talki ...[text shortened]... can really
sin is if we are all held to some standard that we cannot alter and change on whim.
I do not think "sin" is about "right and wrong" or even "good and bad" I think it is about "good" and "evil" in a particular religious (Christian) sense. Based for example on Job, I also do not see that "sinfulness" can be equated with "immorality" at all, though you may argue they inhabit overlapping circles that produce at least some common ground. By that, I mean that for "sin" to be a moral concept, there would have to be a moral standard or criterion or at least a table of moral statements which are not only binding for Man but also God, since we would not expect immorality from God in such a scheme. However, God clearly is not circumscribed by any moral code and His actions in Job illustrate that very clearly. Nor could anyone infer that the misfortunes befalling Job bore any relation whatever to his morality or his behaviour being "good" or "bad" or indeed to his behaviour at all. They were arbitrary whims on the part of a God who was engaged in a dispute with Satan where Job was used as an object for experimentation. (Okay, God compensated him later, by giving him a new family to replace the one killed, for example, as though families could be treated in this manner without moral questions being raised.) Remember it is not me making this stuff up, nor am I the one making up ideas like Abraham offering to sacrifice his son. Morality is simply not applicable to this material.
Sin is not a moral concept; it does not have a bearing on morality.
28 Apr 15
Originally posted by sonhouseYou only have man made notions of morality because you reject your creator.
We ONLY have man made notions of morality. You can talk about the morality of religion but this is the 21st century. New conundrums have popped up that require a deep look at morality and you will not find the solutions in the bible. For instance, the morality of giving or withholding a kidney transplant. Try finding THAT in the bible.
The world is a mi ...[text shortened]... for the most part.
And hear I am, questioning very deeply the authority of said alleged god.
I have said morality isn't the topic I'm was speaking to but sin and right and wrong.
You can make up your on morals and base them upon whatever you would like, it does
not mean your right and wrong are really right and wrong.
God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them, He holds it all together
by the power of His Word. The very breath in your lungs belongs to Him as all else you
see and enjoy around you. His authority wasn't granted by anyone else, it was not voted
upon, it was, is, and forever will be His, and He is here right now where I am currently as
well as where you are. You cannot escape Him in this life or the next, here you can deny
Him and reject His authority you've been given the power to do that, it will just cost you
a relationship with Him. The great sadness is, He is also the very best part of this life, He
created so many gifts for us, but nothing made is better than Him, missing Him is a very
great loss indeed.
28 Apr 15
Originally posted by finneganYou want to attempt to suggest that we who make up our social community are not "we"?
We cannot be "the sole slide rule of what is acceptable." That is where we recognize our membership of a social community. I almost thought we were agreed on that much. But you continue "that would mean something beyond simply personal opinion and societies [sic - you mean society's or even societies' ] acceptance," which seems to imply that you use the wo ...[text shortened]... icable to this material.
Sin is not a moral concept; it does not have a bearing on morality.
Social community is just some number of us setting rules for others to follow, water will not
rise above its source so our social community will have its norms created by us, there is
no other options with just us.
God is love the top two commands by Him are love Him and each other, when we do
those things we fulfill all the other commands! Loving God actually sets us up to love
each other, because He is so much better than each other. Jesus who died for me and
everyone else deserves us because He paid the debt for our sins. That said who am I
to with hold forgiveness from anyone when I've been forgiven of so much? We cannot
really love each other without God, because some of us are real nasty buggers who on
their own I would just flush down the stool, now however I know Jesus loves them even
the most nasty buggers so I need to as well.
The thing about Job you should see is that it didn't matter what happen to Him, as it does
not matter what happens to us! Good and bad things occur, God does not show us who
He likes in this life by who has the nice things and who does not, who lives longest and
who doesn't. The thing we need to know is He loves us as we are, and the great thing is
He wants what is best for us. The best for us is not in this temporary world, all of this will
pass away including us our time is fleeting.
Satan is doomed and all that follow Him, he attempts to hurt God as best He can and the
only way I think He has found to do that is through us, because He knows God loves us.
So in my opinion God is mocked by people who through hate kill others and scream right
before they end their own lives "God is good" since what they will find when they get to
the other side, yes, God is good and they have blood on their hands with no means to
clean them.
Sin is not a moral concept I agree which was why I have not brought up morals and I
have been making the point morals have nothing to do with my point!
28 Apr 15
I have said morality isn't the topic I'm was speaking to but sin and right and wrong.When you talk about right and wrong, then by definition that is morality you are talking about. When you talk about sin that is not morality and not even right and wrong in a moral sense. Sin is a religious concept and concerns your beliefs about Man's relations with God. You appear to think that "sin" has a direct bearing on what is right and wrong (which are moral concepts, like it or not) and I disagree.
You can make up your on morals and base them upon whatever you would like, it does
not mean your right and wrong are really right and wrong.
Your simple and insipid moral drawn from Job is insufficient to do justice to the arguments in that book. It concerns quite deep questioning about the nature of Man's relationship with God and very concretely it questions to what extent God complies with any moral code that can be understood and adhered to by Man. The answer is that God does not conform to any moral code. You just have to take what you get and stop asking dumb questions like 'Why did You just murder my entire family?' Man cannot secure God's favour by acting morally - there is no such contract.
You suggest that it is sufficient for Christianity that we comply with the Golden Rule - loving our neighbour etc. Regrettably, the evidence of this forum is that Christianity makes much more severe demands on its adherents and certainly demands acceptance of some very extraordinary biblical material. It is simply not possible, for instance, to reduce Revelations to the Golden Rule. It would not work. And we have had strong arguments - for example from Suzianne - that without Revelations, the Bible would make no sense, so it is essential to at least her understanding of Christianity. I did not see you argue against her on this - maybe I missed it.
You talk about making up my own morals and basing them on whatever I like. That implies that, without God, this is what I am doing. I strongly disagree. Precisely because morals are social (as discussed above) then moral codes are arrived at socially, not on my own and not to whatever arbitrary criteria I prefer to use. But moral behaviour is entirely individual and by definition it arises when I do something because of a moral judgement or moral decision that is not what I wanted to do otherwise. If I just act on my inclinations, then there is no morality involved, after all, and no need to seek for a moral explanation - if I follow my inclinations that in itself accounts for what I do. Your continuing reference to me making up my own morals really is quite uncalled for and misleading - a straw man argument at best, a libel at worst.
It is important for you to stop confusing what I do as an individual or what "we" do as individuals, each being a different individual acting as such, with what "we" do as a community. Communities - social groupings of whatever size and composition - develop moral codes which bind their members. That is just what happens and it is observed in every society and at every stage of social development. Moral codes can be stable over huge time periods but can also change radically over time. Depends usually on what is going on for that community. An example of social change demanding the development of new moral codes is the practice of modern medicine. For moral codes to change over time is not a failing but a strength. Failing to develop represents a level of inflexibility that would rapidly destroy the purpose of morality - as demonstrated when fundamentalists of all the major faiths advocate reverting to some imagined purity belonging in the past.
28 Apr 15
Originally posted by finneganWhat does this have to do with the Thread subject?I have said morality isn't the topic I'm was speaking to but sin and right and wrong.When you talk about right and wrong, then by definition that is morality you are talking about. When you talk ab ...[text shortened]... alists of all the major faiths advocate reverting to some imagined purity belonging in the past.
You can make up your on morals and base them upon whatever you would like, it does
not mean your right and wrong are really right and wrong.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
28 Apr 15
Okay, if all creation happened in 6 days (and nothing evolved) then it would have to be the case that humans and dinosaurs inhabited the world at the same time. (As only a complete octopus would argue that dinosaurs didn't exist!)
Why then are there no cave drawings of dinosaurs? If i was a cavemen living in a world filled with monstrous lizards i wouldn't waste my time drawing pictures of deer and buffalo, i'd be drawing pictures of triceratops and pterodactyls.
Clearly there was a time gap between dinosaurs and man, so clearly the notion of a young earth is ridiculous.
(Hinds will be along shortly with a youtube clip).